MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324005429 · doi:10.1353/rht.2003.0004

Episodes in the Rhetoric of Government-Indian Relations by Janice Schuetz

2003· article· en· W4324005429 on OpenAlex
Chadwick Allen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRhetorica · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetoricRhetorical questionScholarshipGovernment (linguistics)AppealScope (computer science)HistoryPerspective (graphical)SociologyPolitical scienceMedia studiesSocial scienceLawLiteraturePhilosophyArtLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviews Janice Schuetz, Episodes z/z the Rhetoric ofGovernment-Indian Relations. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. ISBN 0-275-97613-0. xxii + 316 pages. Relations between the United States government and American Indian nations, tribes, or individuals, in all periods of U.S. history, are notoriously resistant to easy analysis or straightforward conclusions. For one thing, the written record is typically incomplete and often heavily biased, in both form and content, against Indian interests. For another, the U.S. academy has been slow to develop adequate research methodologies or innovative theoretical tools that promote scholarship that will be relevant not only to academics but also to Indian peoples themselves. The interdisciplinary fields of ethno-history and American Indian studies have made important strides in these directions over the past couple decades, but there is still a high level of disagreement over which approaches are most appropriate and productive. A carefully researched and specifically-situated rhetorical analysis of significant texts in the history of U.S.-Indian relations would add an important perspective. Unfortunately, Episodes in the Rhetoric of Government-Indian Relations by Janice Schuetz, Professor of Communication at the University of New Mexico, offers neither ground-breaking archival research nor innovative theory. The book's main appeal is its ambitious scope: each of the eleven chapters analyzes a different "episode" in U.S.-Indian relations, from the mid-nineteenth century through the late twentieth century. Moreover, like an introductory textbook to rhetorical theories, each case study employs a different method of analysis: the dramatistic theories of Kenneth Burke are applied to the Pugent Sound War of 1854-58: genre theory is applied to the so-called Sioux Uprising of 1862; speech act and political spectacle theory is applied to the Sand Creek Massacre of 1864; colonial discourse analysis is applied to the history of the Navajo Long Walk and Internment of 1846-68; Victor Turner's theories of ritual and redress are applied to Zuni Witch Cases of 1880-1900; and theories of lamentation are applied to the Wounded Knee Massacre of 1890. Given the range and diversity of cases, Schuetz's presentation and analysis of individual episodes is necessarily limited. Although the breadth of her reading in Indian history is impressive, it is also highly selective for any particular case and, in general, does not add new evidence or points of view. Furthermore, it is often unclear why individual theories were chosen for, and restricted to, particular cases. This is© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XXI, Number 4 (Autumn 2003). Send requests for permission to reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, Journals Division, 2000 Center St, Ste 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223, USA 309 310 RHETORICA especially troubling for colonial discourse analysis, which is given a cursory treatment in Chapter Four but could have been developed in more depth and usefully applied in all of the examples. The last point draws attention to the fact that Schuetz does not develop an overarching thesis for her study in her brief introduction, and offers no separate conclusion. It is thus never clear what might hold these eleven very different chapters together beyond their interest as examples of governmentIndian relations or as examples of the diversity of rhetorical theories. The individual chapters consist mainly of summaries of the relevant history for the particular case study; surprisingly, there is little actual analysis. The conclusions to the individual chapters will likely seem obvious both to scholars actively engaged in American Indian studies and to American Indian peoples who live in the aftermath and ongoing legacies of these histories. The explanatory, theoretical, and activist potential of rhetorical analysis for these cases is left largely untapped. Chadwick Allen Ohio State University Jeffrey M. Suderman, Orthodoxy and Enlightenment: George Campbell in the Eighteenth Century. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001. 293 pages. Readers of Rhetorica are not the audience Jeffrey Suderman targeted in writing Orthodoxy and Enlightenment: George Campbell in the Eighteenth Century. Suderman writes that he was motivated to undertake this study to correct the imbalance of Campbell's modern reputation—as the author of the Philosophy of Rhetoric—and his contemporary reputation, which rested more...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it